I didn't mean my note to sound like an attack. I just wanted to set the
record straight that I am on your side of the issue.
Norman
On 6/28/2013 6:32 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
>> Hi norman,
>> My assertion is that who needs to go to workshops around creeperism is
> everyone who thinks creeperism should be addressed, because then folks
> who aren't creepers can learn some things about how to help ameliorate
> the problem. The interpretation your second message here reinforces
> for me is one where you seem to believe creepers oughta be educated,
> and that you also believe workshops would be towards that end. This
> leaves off any hope of educating concerned bystanders (that would,
> presumably, include you) and creating a non-rapey culture. I am glad
> if that's not what you mean. That's how it reads to me.
>> I empathize if you feel that you've been misrepresented. It was not a
> direct quote, but a paraphrase, because my intention was not to convey
> your thoughts. That was what you did, or attempted to (all
> communication being an approximation, after all).
>> I wanted to convey the way I read, experienced, and interpreted, what
> had been written. It is not my goal to misinterpret people. It is
> something that we all do, and hopefully work continually to do less.
>> I feel like my argument with you here is the same as my recent one
> on-list with johnny radio. Some things I expect from people who are my
> allies:
> -accepting my feelings as valid
> -accepting that communication is a two-way street
> -accepting that your responsibility to attempt to communicate your
> feelings accurately is precisely equal to my responsibility to attempt
> to interpret them correctly.
>> For me, the logical outcome of these tenets is that, if an ally of
> mine speaks in a way that convinces me they hold a certain belief,
> then they would be concerned, and seek to change the way they are
> speaking. For others, the logical outcome of being misunderstood
> seems to be to argue why the other person was wrong for not
> understanding them. Shrug.
>> R.
>> On Jun 28, 2013 6:14 PM, "Norman" <pryankster at gmail.com> <mailto:pryankster at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I think you were trying to quote a comment I made and what you
> said is NOT what I said. What I said is that my experience has
> been that the people that need to go to these workshops are the
> people that don't show up.
>> I did not say that there is no use in having them and didn't say
> anything about that I "believed that harassment is only the
> problem of skeevy creepers, and those they creep on." Harassment
> and assault are a serious problem in our society not just at
> Noisebridge.
>> If you are going to quote me please be correct and don't put words
> or motives in my mouth. I am quite capable of doing that myself.
>> Norman
>> On 6/27/2013 5:49 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
>>> Thank you for caring! I got really sad about someone else's
> offhanded comment that if we do any realtime meetups around
> harrassment issues, there is no use because the people who
> need them won't be there...
>> Which is to say, that person believed that harassment is only
> the problem of skeevy creepers, and those they creep on.
>> I believe it's helpful for anyone who wants to demonstrate
> that they retain some humanity to engage with the issue. I
> also believe that anyone who is interested in the problem is
> qualified to engage with it, and in fact the entire thrust of
> hackering is that you don't need anyone's permission, or to
> reach an educational benchmark, to begin working.
>> R.
>>>> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130628/0461083b/attachment.html>